Document outlines powers but sets no time limit on troop presence

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in
Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an
open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic
framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7
and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the
existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military
operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for
imperative reasons of security” without time limit.

The
authorisation is described as “temporary” and the agreement says the US
“does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in
Iraq”. But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and
other coalition forces – including the British – in the country means
it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi
critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of
US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or
powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security
agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern
the status of the US military and other members of the multinational
force.

Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Muqtada
al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to
ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn,
anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong
opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see
finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the
year.

One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said
yesterday: “The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to
be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the
last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as
it is, but parliament is a different matter.”

It is also likely
to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the
administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by
committing to Iraq’s protection by US forces.

The defence
secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement
would be similar to dozens of “status of forces” pacts the US has
around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic
congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of
the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such
agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the
Senate under the constitution.

Administration officials have
conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to
Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only
states that it is “in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq
that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred.
Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the
territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened.”

Significantly
– given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter’s close
relations with the Iraqi administration’s Shia parties – the draft
agreement specifies that the “US does not seek to use Iraq territory as
a platform for offensive operations against other states”.

General
David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is due to face questioning from
all three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports
to the Senate on the results of his surge strategy, which increased US
forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last year.

Both Clinton and
Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop
withdrawals from Iraq if elected, Obama within 16 months of taking
office. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop
levels until the country is secure.